Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 8



Category:Geffen films

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Reame. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Geffen films to Category:The Geffen Film Company films
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The production company's article is at The Geffen Film Company. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per standard format using WP article name for production company. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Place names of Native American origin

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename:
 * Category:Native American place names of New Jersey to Category:Place names in New Jersey of Native American origin
 * Category:Native American place names of New York to Category:Place names in New York of Native American origin
 * Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming these two, although the entire category and article naming structure for this topic is all over the map. (And then there is the controversy of using Native American, (American) Indian, or Aboriginal, which is another can of worms)  I created a parent category (Category:Place names in the United States of Native American origin) and one subcategory using the the rationale that these are places named almost exclusively by European American settlers using words or combinations of words from various Native American tribes. It seems that in most cases they were not named by, established by(as such), or occupied by(as such) the tribes.  Even if a tribe did name and occupy a particular place, the new naming scheme would still accommodate it without issue.  Also, WP:NCCAT seems to suggest that even if the categories remain named as "Native American place names," as populated places they should be "in" the state and not "of" it.  Open to suggestions if someone has a better idea or sees a flaw I've overlooked. Altairisfar 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vocal-instrumental duet albums

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28. Dana boomer (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * vocal-instrumental duet albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow criteria for inclusion. Very few such albums exist. Redundant to duet albums category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've cleared out Getz/Gilberto as that transparently isn't a duet album (unless "Albums with two surnames in the title"). But others do fit the category (Evans-Bennett etc) and one could argue for broader works fitting under the category; for example electropop (Suicide, Soft Cell, Erasure, Tarwater, etc) or German Lieder (although already under Category:Lieder). AllyD (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It works as part of Category:Duet albums alongside Category:Instrumental duet albums and Category:Vocal duet albums. Cjc13 (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Professional associations by country cleanup

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Procedural close. In almost three weeks, the categories under discussion were not tagged, as is required. If the nominator still wishes to nominate these categories for renaming, they may open a new discussion, being sure to properly tag the relevant articles.. Dana boomer (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass rename currently 21 subcategories of Category:Professional associations by country with inconsistent names and format. Propose renaming in standard style per rest of Category:Organizations by subject and country:
 * Category:British professional bodies --> Category:Professional associations in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Canadian professional bodies --> Category:Professional associations in Canada
 * Category:Indian professional associations --> Category:Professional associations in India
 * etc., etc. (alternatively: Category:Professional associations based in X)
 * Neutralitytalk 16:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nothing here is tagged.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British polo players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:British polo players to Category:English polo players
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories appear to be synonymous. The only difference is one player who was born in Hong Kong when it was a British territory, all others were born in England. We have a separate category for Irish players and India players. We should then add a category redirect. 68.37.180.172 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose the latter should be subcategory of the former. Tim! (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I doubt if the Scottish ones (a whole subcat) wish to be classified as English. Occuli (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clearly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Underground rapid transit by country

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * underground rapid transit by country


 * underground rapid transit in europe


 * underground rapid transit in europe


 * Nominator's rationale: Administrative nomination. These three categories were all tagged back on March 11 but no actual nomination was ever submitted here and the categories appear to have been manually depopulated since. This administrative nomination is to allow the formal process if anyone wants to rescue and repopulate the categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support delete Category:Rapid transit by country is enough, without seperating out "Underground rapid transit" (and Above-ground rapid transit" eg monorails?) Hugo999 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still support but .... There are still all the subcats of Category:Underground rapid transit systems which it was agreed in 2007 to rename from "Subway systems" While still doubtful of the need for a seperate "Underground" Rapid transit category; if the country categories are kept then so should the by country/continent categories, which were possibly overlooked in the renaming. And some like the Vilnius Tram Project are not "underground" anyway? Those in the overall Category:Underground rapid transit systems should go to the appropriate country category. Hugo999 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rumpole of the Bailey

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * rumpole of the bailey


 * Nominator's rationale: We almost never categorize people by programmes they've been in or associated with, and there are only two articles in this category (one of them being the main article) that aren't actors, writers, etc. Category is unnecessary. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per long-standing consensus codified at WP:OC, which specifically "includes categorization by performance in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, a clear case of overcategorisation. – anemone projectors – 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish American businesspeople

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: No consensus to restore; therefore delete per status quo ante. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * jewish american businesspeople


 * Nominator's rationale: Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2011 March 31. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Here's why: For starters, there are other categories categorizing American Jews by occupation, as well as Category:American businesspeople by ethnicity, so this category is not without precedent.  This is also a list of List of Jewish American businesspeople with more than enough people on it for a category, a category is the logical next step (people might say "Oh, but there's COI and POV issues categorizing people in this category"; considering how referenced the category is I doubt that).  There is ample coverage of the intersection between American business and Judaism; Bernie Madoff alone would justify this category, to say nothing of the numerous other American businessman who have been mentioned in the context of business (I'm not passing judgment on the PC or non-PC of these; merely pointing out that they do exist widely).  You will probably hear something about overcategorization.  People forget that the counterpoint to that is categories that are so large that they are unnavigable; Category:American Jews and Category:American businesspeople; each contain over 2,500 pages not counting those in their subcategories.  This is a logical diffusion of the two categories.  In short, there are a bunch of reasons why this category should exist, which far outweigh the reasons it shouldn't.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  07:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the previous deletion. I don't see any schemes whereby we categorize businesspeople by ethnicity or by a nationality/religion combo. In most cases, it will be an trivial triple intersection. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, Category:American businesspeople by ethnicity? Considering the coverage on American Judaism and business, this is not one of the cases where it would be trivial  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted at the DRV, that category only has two other subcategories, and one of them only has a couple of articles in it and should probably be sent to CfD as well. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a fully developed scheme at all, probably because of its lack of utility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I think this category runs afoul of the relevant guidelines. From Categories:"'Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Overcategorization.'"And from Overcategorization:"'People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.'"As some (myself included) argued at the DRV, it is highly unlikely that this category will be comprehensive enough to be plausibly of any value to our readers. (I think List of Jewish American businesspeople is more than enough for that purpose.) Moreover, in my opinion, this also conflicts with WP:OC, which I've quoted in part above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that the category would not be comprehensive, or that comprehensiveness is required of categories. You also forget that there is a flip side to overcategorization, which is categories becoming too large to be navigated.  The parent categories of this category are very very large.  Nor have you failed to offer any evidence that Judaism is not important to any of the people who would potentially be in the category; Epefleche offered much evidence to the contrary (i.e. that Judaism is a defining characteristic for many of the people listed) at the DRV  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the Judaism of the person that has to be a defining characteristic in order to apply this category, it's the combination of Judaism + American nationality + businessperson. That is a much more difficult thing to demonstrate, as are most triple-intersections, especially religion/nationality/occupation or ethnicity/nationality/occupation combinations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * delete Per nom and A Stop at Willoughby.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Either as a recreation of a previously deleted category or as a simple over-categorization / trivial intersection of characteristics, take your pick. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The criteria for categories is usefulness. People in a specific occupation and ethnicity are one of the things that users go to reference books for, as shown by the large number of such   works that have appeared, and the attention paid to this in biographies. The opposition to them is, as  A Stop at Willoughby says, that some people do not find them useful. This is irrelevant, if some people do. there's about 90% of the categories in Wikipedia that I find of no conceivable use to me, but this should have no effect on how I judge them. I am trying to make not an encyclopedia  for my own use, but for the general public, which has   in the aggregate much wider interests.  The world, both Jewish and non-Jewish, has often considered there is some degree of special relationship between this ethnic categories and propensity for a business career. When this is scurrilous or a matter for congratulation is irrelevant. I think some of the opposition to these categories is that people ought not to think such an intersection significant--but that's straight POV. We deal with what people do find of interest, not what they ought to. As for overcategorization, when there are , if we covered businesspeople properly, hundreds or even thousands of entries that would go here, it's not over-categorization--it would be if there were only 2 or 3 of them. enWikipedia covers the world in its articles, but in its navigational features it is directed at readers of English, and can properly put emphasis on those aspects of navigation of interest in the major English speaking countries. Even ASAW agrees that a list is appropriate, and unless there is some reason otherwise, for every list there should be a category  .    DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adopting a standard of "usefulness" is next to, er, "useless"—because one can always argue that any information is "useful" to someone. A phonebook is useful to many people, but WP is not a phonebook, and so forth. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The criteria for categories is usefulness" ? Honestly DGG, I stopped reading there. Tarc (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not, DGG, it just isn't. There's broad, long-time consensus that irrelevant intersections are undesirable.  Usefulness has nothing to do with it. -- Y not? 01:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just came across this category when looking for categories to add to Ronn Torossian. He is an example of a person who would fit in this category, as he is Jewish, American, a businessperson, and his Jewishness is relevant to his business career. I feel sure there are other people with Wikipedia articles who could be included without controversy. I recognise that categories like this one have to be used carefully, and we shouldn't sub-categorise businesspeople by ethnicity 'just because we can'; but I think that there are likely to be enough articles where its use would be appropriate to justify its existence as a category. Robofish (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have to wonder if the people supporting the deletion of this category intend to delete every other category in Category:American Jews by occupation as well. If so, I look forward with interest to the CFD nomination of Category:American rabbis... Robofish (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your rhetorical question, yes, a lot (but not all) of the stuff in Category:American Jews by occupation is inappropriate, misrepresentative, and frankly a little suspiciously motivated (I'm referring to Category:Jewish American political consultants with that last point). Bull dog123  14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound very FAITHful of you. I would not call most of the categories any of those things...merely legitimate attempts at subcategorization  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No brainer: delete per Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_6 -- Y not? 20:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, that was four and a half years ago...Any reason why it's still relevant? After all, consensus can change  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus didn't :) -- Y not? 01:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per A Stop at Willoughby. Bull dog123  14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:English Classics

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * english classics


 * Nominator's rationale: Don't think this cat will do any good at all. The word "classic" is both subjective and arbitrary, which categories should certainly not be. HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.